E-mail List Archives
Thread: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) version 1.3 or version 2.0
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
From: Liko, Todd
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2014 10:46AM
Subject: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) version 1.3 or version 2.0
No previous message | Next message →
Hello all.
When testing accessibility of PDF documents, one of the tools I use is PAC 2.0. One of my colleagues tests for accessibility using version 1.3 and version 2.0 of PAC because he says both versions capture different issues.
In my own testing, I have found that issues identified in version 1.3 are false positives and are not identified version 2.0. Has anyone else experienced this?
I see no reason to continue using an old version of a tool.
Todd.
_______
Todd Liko
Communications Advisor | Conseiller en communications
Web Services | Services Web
Communications and Marketing | Communications et Marketing
427 Avenue Laurier Avenue West (AEAD), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
427 Avenue Laurier Ouest (AEAD), Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N5
e-mail / courriel: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
telephone / téléphone: 613-949-9425 | fax / télécopieur: 613-949-2386
blackberry: 613-796-6375
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
From: Samuel Hofer
Date: Mon, Aug 18 2014 1:58PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) version 1.3 or version 2.0
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Todd,
As developer of PAC 1.x and PAC 2.x I don't recommend to use PAC 1.3 any
longer. We've fixed many errors of PAC 1.3 in PAC 2.0
Thus, there is a good reason NOT to continue using an old version of PAC.
;-)
Samuel
> From: "Liko, Todd" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) version 1.3 or
> version 2.0
> Date: August 18, 2014 at 12:46:37 PM EDT
> To: "' = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = '" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Hello all.
>
> When testing accessibility of PDF documents, one of the tools I use is PAC
2.0. One of my colleagues tests for accessibility using version 1.3 and
version 2.0 of PAC because he says both versions capture different issues.
>
> In my own testing, I have found that issues identified in version 1.3 are
false positives and are not identified version 2.0. Has anyone else
experienced this?
>
> I see no reason to continue using an old version of a tool.
>
> Todd.
>
> _______
> Todd Liko
> Communications Advisor | Conseiller en communications Web Services |
> Services Web Communications and Marketing | Communications et
> Marketing
> 427 Avenue Laurier Avenue West (AEAD), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
> 427 Avenue Laurier Ouest (AEAD), Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N5 e-mail /
> courriel: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> telephone / téléphone: 613-949-9425 | fax / télécopieur: 613-949-2386
> blackberry: 613-796-6375
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>
> > > list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =